neilmac

You don't need to see this. It fails at every level: The plot is non-existent, the cinematography is clumsy, the acting is amateurish and the ending inconclusive.

The movie is shot in that fake amateur doco style of the Blair Witch Project. The first hour was just plain boring. Shot with a very limited set (inside the house) and nothing much happening. The audience in the cinema was literally squirming in their seats - I nearly walked out. The female lead is a pudgy, unattractive lady with limited acting skills. Her partner is more credible as an actor, but has nothing to do but react to the 'scary' happenings and the unconvincing hissy-fits thrown by his de-facto.

Shot on a minimal budget, with minimal results. A waste of space, time and (your) money.

Not a good movie. In the book, Fast Eddie gets Minnesota Fats to coach him in making his comeback. The Tom Cruise character did not exist (and was completely unnecessary). Jackie Gleason was still alive when they made this, but may have been too old to reprise his role as Fats.

The main problem is that Newman and Cruise do not connect. Cruise's acting is false and over-the-top and his character is just not credible. The pool sequences are well done but it is a lack-lustre movie overall.

While Paul Newman is good in the role, it is not an Oscar-worthy performance. The Academy must simply have decided that it was Newman's turn to get an Oscar.

So why did The Hustler work where this sequel does not? For a start, The Hustler had a much better screenplay, including some great quotable lines. But where The Hustler excelled was in the acting: The support cast of Myron McCormick, Piper Laurie, George C Scott and Jackie Gleason were first rate - with understated and totally believable performances...

Frank Sinatra that is. Listen to Frank deliver Lee Hazelwood's song "This Town" like nobody else could and enjoy - it's one of the few good bits.

And the movie? Flabby and self-indulgent. It is supposed to be a heist movie but the tension is never effectively developed. You get the impression that Clooney and his mates enjoyed the last one and decided to get together again in Vegas and knock out a movie while they were there. The cast seem to be enjoying themselves while forgetting the basics of movie making i.e. entertaining the audience. The pace sags in places and you never really get involved in the story. Elliot Gould and Ellen Barkin are good in their roles but that is not enough to carry the movie. Maybe Hollywood has forgotten how to make an effective comedy/thriller? The original Rat Packers were better than this - and they were singers, not actors...